4

OPINION
Monday, April 10, 1989

Page 4

The Michigan Daily

4b e irb4an BaiIs
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
420 Maynard St.

,4

Institutional

racis

Vol. IC, No. 130

Ann Arbor MI 48109

Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board. All other
cartoons, signed articles, and letters do not necessarily represent the opinion
of the Daily.
Faculty oppose education

THE RECENT VOTE of the LS&A
faculty against a graduation requirement
in the study of race, ethnicity, and
racism was extremely disappointing. It
seems that the majority of the faculty
felt that education was an inappropriate
way to combat racism within the Uni-
versity and the larger society. This
sentiment seemed well expressed in a
letter signed by 11 faculty members
which said, "Enforcing participation in
college courses for the purpose of ef-
fecting particular social improvements
is inimical to the spirit and to the ulti-
mate social utility of liberal higher
education" The letter continues,"By
forcing our students to participate, as a
captive audience, in our efforts to
eradicate racism, we shall forfeit the
opportunity to enlist their free and
willing participation in those same ef-
forts."
The concern of these faculty mem-
bers to avoid what they view as coer-
cive means to combat racism is some-
what bizarre, both given the coercive
reality of racism which confronts mi-
norities daily, and also given the fact
that the University has already adopted
a non-academic code pertaining to dis-
criminatory acts. Many, of the same
faculty who opposed the mandatory
course apparently have no problem
with this type of coercion. Under this
code, the University may forcibly re-
move students deemed guilty of racist
acts from their classrooms.
The faculty seem willing to allow that
the University has the right, and even
the responsibility, to punish and even
expel individuals who commit racist
acts, but feel that it has no right or re-
sponsibility to educate individuals
about the reality of racism. They have
much more confidence in the ability of
the University to administer punish-
ment than to educate.
The final, amended proposal that was
rejected by the faculty was already wa-
tered down to the point where there
was no guarantee that it would have

served a useful purpose. The amended
proposal would have given LSA Dean
Steiner the power to appoint the com-
mittee that was to oversee the course,
the same person whose racist remarks
sparked demands for his resignation
last year.
In addition, the amended proposal
held that any course satisfying the
graduation requirement would only
have to meet three of the six criteria in-
cluded in the original proposal. With
Steiner appointing the committee and
the loosening of the criteria, there's no
telling what kinds of courses would
have been approved.
Unfortunately, there was no indica-
tion that any of the faculty who voted
against the proposal did so on the basis
of these concerns. Rather, there was a
lot of talk about "ideology" and
"indoctrination," as though the intro-
ductory courses currently taught in the
social sciences and humanities are de-
void of these pitfalls.
President Duderstadt must share
some of the blame for the defeat of an
educational approach to the problem of
institutional racism. For all his talk of
Michigan leading the way into the
twenty-first century, he failed not only
to exercise his own leadership, but
missed a chance for the University to
exert a national influence on this issue.
Duderstadt cannot be excused by sim-
ply passing the buck to the faculty.
There's no doubt he could have influ-
enced the outcome if he had showed
the courage to support and lobby for
the original proposal. At the very least
he could have assured the faculty that
the administration was committed to
providing the financial resources re-
quired to implement the course.
The course is out for now, but far
from dead. Ironically, racist flyers
were re-emerging just as course was
voted down. If there's one thing the
faculty vote shows, it's that an institu-
tional change like this one will never
occur without student protest and pres-
sure..It has rarely been otherwise.

By Ellen Poteet
The "Railton Proposal" has failed. The
institutional basis to racism on this cam-
pus continues. With Professor Railton, I
too was encouraged by the closeness of the
faculty vote. The near-tie means a polar-
ized faculty and polarization, in sparking
debate, is a crucial step in questioning as-
sumptions about what constitutes a uni-
versity education. Unfortunately, both the
arguments against the proposal and the
amended proposal itself reveal the obsta-
cles yet in the way of combatting institu-
tional racism.
Opposition to the proposal for its con-
nection with other than well-worn college
channels, faculty dismissal of Professor
Will's motion to give women and people
of color a central role on the curriculum
committee, and the decision to amend the
original LSA proposal by removing the
power of oversight from those professors
and students most aware of racism's im-
plications, all demonstrate that the admin-
istrative initiative remains where it has
traditionally remained - in the hands of
an elite university which has assiduously
sought to distance itself from the rights
and demands of minority students repre-
sented by the United Coalition Against
Racism (UCAR).
Ellen Poteet is a graduate student in the
Department of History.

The curriculum as it stands now can ac-
commodate the issue of racism. Accom-
modation, however, has its limits. It is
not enough to give one-third of an Ameri-
can history survey course over to racism
- a move suggested by History Depart-
ment Professor Perkins. Rather, students
must hear the arguments against racism
from the individuals who have dedicated
themselves to making those arguments
part of their political lives and academic
careers. The point is not indoctrination,
but a clear vision of how women and men

'The point is not indoctrination, but a clear vision of how
women and men shape their own history and of how the
cultures of the most isolated groups of society have structural
connections with the rest of that society.'

,m alive
and women would allow students to ap-
proach their other courses in the spirit of
debate, to know the freedom of question-
ing conventional interpretations of "old"
evidence, and to see "new" evidence before
discounting it out of hand.
Several voices of opposition to the pro-
posal have warned of intentions of "moral
effect." I would agree that the inculcation
of one set of moral values is manipulative
and unacceptable in a university such as
this one. But we must not confuse the
production of moral effect with the ethics

Y

4

shape their own history and of how the
cultures of the most isolated groups of
society have structural connections with
the rest of that society.
To study racism in today's university
curriculum, with professors for whom
racism and the struggles against it are
lived reality, is to encounter directly the
power and vividness of historical speci-
ficity. Furthermore, rather than restructur-
ing the academic choices of the student, a
mandatory course giving central attention
to racism and organized by people of color

of scholarship which require - demand -
that the researcher never cease to unveil all
evidence. The process is unending, but
ridding ourselves of the blinders of racism
and social exploitation will facilitate it
immeasurably. As long as these institu-
tionalized forms of oppression remain,
there remains as well an undiminished ur-
gency to support all efforts to keep a pro-
posal for a mandatory class on racism o
the LSA faculty agenda, and to recognize
the initial initiative behind it - UCAR,
not the Dean's Office.

4

14

Women in advertising:

Still killing us

Outnumbered? Not Mon.

THE RECENT RIOTING by University
basketball fans raises interesting ques-
tions about the role of the police in our
society. Those who view this role as
essentially neutral - enforcing the
laws - may now want to reconsider
this notion.
It is difficult to imagine that the po-
lice would have stood idly by if
African-American people had been.
breaking windows, tearing up street
signs, and turning over cabs. It is true,
of course, that the police were greatly
outnumbered. But Monday night's ri-
ots were fully anticipated. In similar
situations in the past, reinforcements
have been on hand, from the National
Guard if necessary, to maintain order.
The uprisings of people of color during
the sixties shows this clearly.
The key feature of the disturbance
last Monday, distinguishing it from sit-
uations in the past where police force
has been used, is that it did not involve
political protest, nor was it an uprising
of socio-economically oppressed peo-
ple. The use of state violence to defend
"law and order" was accordingly re-
stricted.
Nonetheless, the incident was an
embarrassment to the city government
and the police. Riots like these violate
certain principles that are necessary to
the maintenance of social cohesion,
such as the sanctity of private property.
And the legitimacy of state violence is
easily called into question when it is so
glaringly selective. Police chief William
Corbett, denouncing the riots as
"criminal actions," was obviously up-
set by his inability to act.

not take the necessary measures to
maintain order? Those who made the
decision to allow the rioting and not
use force to prevent it had an interest in
seeing that "too much" force was not
used.
In July 1987, when Ann Arbor
police beat people who gathered
outside a local bar after the Art Fair,
allegations of police brutality and
harassment were made in public
testimony before city council.
Testimony covered not only the Art
Fair incidents and the treatment of
protesters on campus, but also the
primary victims of police harassment in
Many people testified in support of a
civilian review board for the police.
This is a perfectly reasonable idea,
since without one, the police are ac-
countable only to themselves, and are
therefore routinely exonerated by inter-
nal investigations. The idea of a civilian
review board is obviously anathema to
the police and their supporters.
It is likely, then, that those officials
responsible for the decision to let the
riots take their course last Monday
realized that the violence necessary to
subdue the crowd (and it would have
involved plenty, considering the
intoxication of many of the rioters),
would have sparked renewed calls for a
police review board. This was a risk
they did not want to take.
In short, force was withheld so as
not to jeopardize the free use of vio-
lence against the people it is primarily
designed to contain: those at the bottom
of the socio-economic ladder, including

By Lauren MacVay and
Sharon Danoff
As most people have heard by now,
April is Rape Prevention Month on cam-
pus, in Ann Arbor, and in the state of
Michigan. We've been "celebrating" this
on campus now for three years by bring-
ing issues about sexual assault to the
foreground. When most people think of
"rape prevention" they think of teaching
women self-defense, or reminding women
to lock their doors and windows and to
never walk alone at night. But rape is a
problem that is much more complex than
simple avoidance tactics suggest. In fact,
if we were able to teach every woman self-
defense, and every woman on campus
never went out without an "escort," we
would still have a problem with rape on
this campus. Why is this? A large reason
is that rape is not just about one deranged
man who picks out a victim and rapes her.
To really understand sexual assault requires
an understanding of a culture that appears
to accept the victimization of women.
In our society, advertising, among other
things (such as gender stereotypes, sex
discrimination, and pornography) perpetu-
ates stereotypic images of men and women
which create an atmosphere conducive to
victimization. Think about the commer-
cials that show women looking like
they've already been raped, looking fright-
ened or belittled, or acting helpless. The
average American will spend about a year
and a half of his or her lifetime watching
T.V. commercials and is probably exposed
to two thousand ads in one day. Repeated
exposure to the messages conveyed
through these ads results in an acceptance
of what is seen in advertisements as
"normal." We're not saying that this kind
of advertising causes rape or violence
against women. Read this carefully---
doesn't it make sense to you that the more
you see one image, the more "normal" it
will appear? Therefore, it stands to reason
that the more we see women in degrading
or helpless roles, the more that seems
normal. Of course none of us are walking
around saying: "women are helpless and
are only to be degraded and victimized,"
Lauren Macvay and Sharon Danoff work
for the Sexual Assault Prevention and
Awareness Center.

but when something is all around us;
when it is "normal," we tend to not even
question it --- or worse still, to even
notice it.
That is why this April, we are focusing
on sexism in advertising as a part of our
Rape Prevention Month activities. To call
attention to that what has become an ac-
cepted part of our culture, question it, and
wonder out loud about why we allow these
images to continue uncriticized.
There are four general ways that adver-
tisements victimize women:
- Sex role stereotyping casts roles of
submissiveness and subordination for
women; strength, control and dominance
for men. These roles have become so
commonplace that they are rarely ques-
tioned or challenged.
- Objectifying women to sell a product
reduces women to body parts. When
women's legs or breasts are emphasized in
advertising, it is easier to forget that there
is something more to that woman (like a
mind, like emotions, etc). This dehuman-

softly
whelming. First of all, we can call atten-
tion to these images and their impact
whenever we see them. The Sexual As-
sault Prevention and Awareness Center
along with the Citizen's Advisory Com-
mittee on Rape Prevention is sponsoring a
"Sexism In Advertising Contest" where
you can vote for your "favorite" sexist ad.
All of those advertisers who are nominated
will receive letters explaining the contest
and why they were entered. In addition, the
winner will also receive a letter as well as
the recognition of being so named
throughout media coverage. Secondly,
some people refuse to buy products from
those companies who use this kind of
blatantly sexist tactic - better still, they
write to the company and explain why
they will no longer buy their products.
It's interesting to see the impact of con-
sumer pressure. Still others protest this
kind of advertising. Not very long ago in
Ann Arbor there was an "infamous" bill-
board above the Main St. Party Store.
The "Feel the Velvet" campaign of Cana-


.

'Advertisements create a limited standard of beauty which in
reality is impossible to attain. Women are expected to look like
the young, thin, white, airbrushed models seen in the media.'

4

4

ization implies that women are solely ob-
jects for the enjoyment of men. Such a
message is conveyed quite clearly, for ex-
ample, by Speedo's "Gentlemen Start
Your Engines" campaign. Objectification
is humiliating in its denial of women's
individuality and intelligence, and is dan-
gerous because it makes abuse easier to
accept.
- Advertisements create a limited stan-
dard of beauty which in reality is
impossible to attain. Women are expected
to look like the young, thin, white, air-
brushed models seen in the media. The
impact of this on women's self-esteem is
extreme. Most women, even those strug-
gling daily with overcoming their own
gender-based upbringing, cannot help but
glimpse ads or the cover of "Cosmo" and
compare herself to the women seen there.
- Advertising that portrays or implies
violence against women insinuates that
abuse is OK. It also contributes to the
myth that women enjoy coercion.
But what can we do about all this?
Sometimes this can seem very over-

dian Velvet Whiskey had angered many
people around the country and this bill-
board was the site of many different kinds
of protests. After several years of contin-
ued pressure the billboard was finally
changed.
Most importantly, we need to all think
deeply and challenge our assumptions
about the messages we receive on a daily
basis about men and women, power and
control, and the almost constant
victimization that women face in our
society today. Today, all day, in the
Michigan Union Pendleton Room, we
will be showing a film, "Still Killing Us
Softly," that talks more about this. It does
an excellent job of pointing out that
which has become so normal to most of
us. Stop by any time during the day, or if
you would like to participate in a discus-
sion about these issues, the 7 p.m. show-
ing will be followed by a discussion.
You can find ballots for voting in the
Sexism in Advertising Contest at this
time. Remember, what's appears "normal"
may not be the way we really want to live
our lives. Think about it!

s

' ..:: >:::::::. . .... -j};};:: ?:":?ii}iii}i?...:::......:...
..........
. :: r:: :::::::. ... ..::.......r .. ::: :w:: :" . ......::. ..- :w:. :v................. ..................................................::::: ". ::.: ::::. :{: :".i':G::Jii;.::.:::{::::. ::.: ::::..:< : ii:Y'r':>i7:" } ri}J
. ...:. ........... .... ....... ... .. .. ....... .... ............. ... .... .. ...... .........4:>:{L4:-}iii:: }ii:v:vJ3-:ir>.":.". tiI ". .',S."R}}r,
.vn .", .... v :, . ."::: : '. : :.:. : ... .... .. .. ... .. :.:::. .": {<. .}":{{: .;y;_.y{{"}7:"?Y: i:"i' ;::'rr _: {.;{: {"}i}}?:!.}}:.i}}: ip;{.};.}; }::.;:.:5::: {::":. .}v: n;. _: ";{ ::.: : :. :. :.:...: :... : :....: :" w " "... .. .:.
i
4'i{
r. .

Violence
discredits
U. students

ment.
I have always been proud to
think that people who attend
the University of Michigan
were thinking individuals. I
have always believed that be-

Several school age children I
know are devastated that their
ballet studio was vandalized.
They cannot dance upon glass.
They ask me why college stu-
dents would ruin their own

day night which are worthy of
respect and admiration: deter-
mination, sportsmanship, co-
operation, human bonding. The
excitement and pride evoked by
the national championship was


S

1